Letters

Old mindsets in the unequal fight against poverty

What is it that accounts for the barely concealed glee which has accompanied the coalition government's announcements of cuts to public spending and the disproportionate effects of this on the poor (Report, 30 July)? Is the relish simply a continued V sign to the old imperfect liberal consensus that was routed by the Thatcher government and despised by New Labour, or is there something more behind the tone than party political triumphalism?

It seems to me the answer may be a psychological one as much as a political or rational one. An examination by government ministers of the failing of their own class – which on the face of it is more responsible for the economic crisis than are the people that will be disadvantaged – would be too much for them to unravel or, having unravelled, would be too painful for them to understand. So they have resorted to an old mindset. They are seeking to reform, victimise, blame and patronise the unprivileged all at the same time, who they see as being an unproductive overhead. There is kind of infantile sadism hidden in the coalition's sense of entitlement and educated sophistication. There are people who can't forgive the poor for not having been rescued by capitalism – because capitalism cannot reach them. Philip Larkin expressed this when he wrote in a letter: "I want to see them starving, / The so-called working class, / Their wages yearly halving, / Their women stewing grass …"

Peter Gill

London

• The Spirit Level shows that problems more common among the least well-off are worse in societies with bigger income differences (Letters, 28 July). We show this among a single set of rich countries before double-checking our results among the 50 states of the USA. Taking the data warts and all, we found a consistent pattern across almost 30 relationships. Against this, our critics make piecemeal complaints, excluding this country here, those states there, or, when ad hoc excuses fail, unwillingly accepting analyses. But even allowing all their exclusions, valid or not, our index combining health and social problems remains strongly related to inequality.

And it's not just our book. The tendency for homicide to be more common in more unequal societies has been demonstrated by others 40 times. That health is worse in more unequal societies has been shown over 100 times. So, faced with research showing the same pattern among the regions of Russia, provinces of China, counties of Chile, or rich and poor countries together, what regions, provinces, counties or developing countries would our critics exclude?